The Heinous Failure Of The Obama Administration Against Terrorism

This essentially is the first time that Democrats have been in charge of the war on terror.  And – contrary to Obama’s “good solid B+” that he gave himself – Democrats have flunked hideously.

According to Rasmussen, 79% of Americans believe another terrorist attack is likely within the next year.  Which is a thirty point jump from the end of August.  That’s a profound lack of confidence in Barack Obama.

“The war on terror.”  The very phrase demonstrates the unforgivable incompetence of Barrack Hussein.  Because his people refused to use the word “terrorism” and tried to replace it with “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disaster” to deny the reality of terrorism through politically correct re-labelling.  But with terrorist attacks occurring on US soil, what’s the deal with the word “overseas”?  It’s right here.

After days of White House officials saying they did a smashing job, even Obama is now finally calling his own administration’s handling of this terror attack “totally unacceptable.”

“There was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security,” Obama [FINALLY] said today.

There have been over a dozen attempted terrorist attacks against the United States on American soil in 2009, and two of them have been successful.

“Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don’t seem to like Americans any better because we’re closing down Guantanamo.”

And they don’t like us any better because of Barack Hussein’s naivete, incompetence, and constant apologies denouncing his own country, either.

We have only to look at the last two attacks to see the casual disregard and the blatant incompetence the Obama administration has demonstrated in the war against terrorism.

During the November Fort Hood terrorist attack that killed thirteen soldiers and wounded dozens more, the Obama administration first denied any link to terrorism, then basically suppressed the investigation after scores of details began to emerge revealing what a shocking failure of the system had taken place under Obama’s watch.  Obama himself gave an incredibly weird speech just after the attack, in which he offered a “shout out” to a man whom he incorrectly identified as having received the Medal of Honor before spending mere moments acknowledging that more than a dozen US soldiers on a secure American base inside the United States had just been murdered by a jihadist.

And we’re now beginning to see a rather frightening disconnected pattern emerging as to how Obama deals with terrorism.

In any event, we just had a situation in which a terrorist very nearly detonated a device that probably would have brought the plane down – killing 290 – and possibly would have killed many more as it crashed into Detroit’s airport.  The words “Christmas miracle” are being used to describe the luck we had in so narrowly avoiding this disaster.

And what was the Obama response?  Well, at first, nothing.  The same fawning sycophants that Obama surrounded himself with – who awakened him immediately to notify him that he “won” the Nobel price – didn’t bother to tell him that the United States had just experienced a terrorist attack for three full hours.

Obama didn’t bother to respond (and interrupt his glorious Hawaiian vacation) even after he heard about it.  But his minions began running around.  Their initial blathering was that “the system has worked very, very smoothly.”

Apparently, Obama believed that the media would give him the same adoring propaganda that they gave him during the campaign (which Bernard Goldberg dubbed “A Slobbering Love Affair“).  The narrative was that since the attack didn’t succeed, Barack Obama must be a brilliant commander-in-chief.  But fortunately, that lie was almost immediately revealed as a lie and angrily refuted even by the mainstream media.

I mean, even the New York Times is saying Obama screwed this up terribly.

The same incompetent Obama official – Department of Homeland Security administrator Janet Napolitano – who claimed how well the system worked proceeded to acknowledge that the system was a failure the very next day.  “The system did not work in this instance,” she said by way of massive understatement.

So the system that worked very, very smoothly actually didn’t work.

Mind you, this was also the same Obama official who had previously refused to call terrorists “terrorists,” but had no problem calling our very own returning veterans who had fought such terrorists “rightwing extremists” while hiring a man who turned out to be an actual terrorist to explain how our soldiers were potential terrorists.

Then the Obama administration went back to their tried and true formula, and the only thing they are actually good at: they decided to blame Bush.

From the Washington Post:

“White House officials struggled to explain the complicated system of centralized terrorist data and watch lists, stressing that they were put in place years ago by the Bush administration.”

The problem with that thesis is that the Bush system actually worked.  Here was a kid (I say “kid” because he looks like he’s about 15 years old) whose name showed up on a terrorist watch list.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that the Obama administration ignored the list.  Or that they ignored the fact that the UK had refused to issue the kid a visa a few months back after catching the kid in a lie regarding his purpose for visiting the country.  Or that the kid had spent the last couple of months in terrorist-dreamland Yemen.  Or that the kid’s father had personally gone to the UN embassy and said his son had been radicalized.  Or that the kid had no passport to go to the United States.  Or that the kid suspiciously didn’t bother to check any luggage on an international flight.  Those things were Goerge Bush’s fault exactly HOW?

Like every other time Obama has pointed a demagoguing finger of blame at Bush, there were at least three fingers pointing right at him.

Now we’re finding out that the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab actually met with the Central Intelligence Agency at the US embassy in Nigeria on November 19 and told them that his son was radicalized.   Basically, he couldn’t have done more without hiring a skywriter to scrawl, “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a terrorist!” over the White House.

We’re now finding out that the CIA had been tracking this kid since August.

And it’s George Bush’s fault that this terrorist got through?

Realize that whenever Obama blames Bush, what he is really admitting is that he is a pathetically incompetent non-leader who will not take responsibility for his failures.

George Bush wouldn’t have said that his system was perfect.  He would have argued that it needed to be constantly updated.  But Barack Obama not only has failed to improve on the security protections put into place by George Bush; he has worked hard to tear those protections apart and leave this nation and its citizens dangerously exposed.

Stop and think about it: Shoe Bomber Richard Reid (aka Abdul Raheem and as Tariq Raja) attempted to blow up a plane with PETN back in December, 2oo1 – only a couple of months after 9/11.  Bush systematically implemented policies to keep us safe.  Obama tore those policies apart, and look what is happening.

We can blame George Bush for not recognizing that Barrack Hussein was a dangerous man, and sticking him in Gitmo before he had a chance to do more damage.  But other than that, no honest person would blame George Bush for Obama’s failure.

When Obama finally bothered to make his initial comment on the attack (in a short statement, taking no questions), he said that the attack had been committed by an “isolated extremist” (and please note the inherent contradiction within even his own statement!).  But by the time he said that, it was already obvious that the only thing “isolated” about this attack was the Obama White House.  The kid said he had been trained and sent by al Qaeda, and that there were some 25 more terrorists just like him ready to unleash hells of their own.  And it turned out that the PETN explosive had come from al Qaeda-base Yemen.  And al Qaeda acknowledged that this kid was one of theirs.

Steve Hayes called Obama’s “isolated extremist” remark “stunningly foolish.”  And even the liberal Washington Post pointed out “the disturbingly defensive reaction of the Obama administration.”

Obama also said that his administration was doing “everything in it’s power to keep you safe.”  And then he treats the terrorist who had just tried to murder hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans like a common criminal and allows him to lawyer up while doctors attend to the wounds he incurred trying to murder said Americans.  For what its worth, the Bush administration would have recognized that this terrorist wasn’t a “criminal” at all, but a perpetrator of an act of war against the United States of America, and an enemy of the state.  And the Bush administrator – rather than focusing on the kid’s “rights” – would have instead focused on the country’s right to find out who had sent this punk to murder its citizens and every detail of every aspect of leading up to the attack so that we could stomp out another nest of terrorists.

Allow me to quote Joe Wilson to respond to Barack Hussein: “You lie!”

This was a cascading leadership failure from top to bottom.  A lousy disgrace of a president picked a lousy disgrace of a Homeland Security Secretary.

Now for the idiotic and frankly immoral liberal devices to defend America in a war they won’t even acknowledge is a damn war.

The word “profiling” immediately comes to mind.

Mind you, it’s not that the Obama administration isn’t profiling, just that they are focusing on the wrong profile.  I mean, the terrorist in question wasn’t a returning combat veteran who’d recently come back from protecting this country from terrorists; he didn’t have any “tea bags” on him; he wasn’t an evangelical Christian; he wasn’t pro-life.  They just had the wrong profile, and need to adjust it to include actual terrorists.

Let us not forget that the terrorists are profiling us.

The Christmas terrorist attack was a naked attempt to murder as many Christians as possible during Christmas.  Obama Democrats shriek at the thought that we might profile a terrorist.  But the terrorists are sure as hell profiling us.

Then you add the fact that for the last eight years millions and millions of innocent and harmless Americans have been subjected to invasive and embarrassing procedures to make sure we’re not jihadist murderers, but this young Muslim male who attended madrases and came from Yemen and paid for his ticket in cash and didn’t have a passport gets aboard with his damned bomb?

That American grandma in the walker isn’t your terrorist, dumbasses.  And it is an affront to common sense and even sanity that you treat that Grandma the same as the 23 year old Muslim whose just come from Yemen.

A lot of liberals are now STILL saying that we don’t dare violate the civil liberties of Muslims, regardless of the fact that 99.9999999999998% of all the hundreds of thousands of terrorist attacks over the past 20 years have been committed by Muslims. They want us to use invasive and expensive scanning equipment that literally strips us naked and shows our boobies, our bottoms, and our hoo hoos, and tramples on everybody’s basic rights, rather than focus on the group that is perpetrating the terror attacks.  We need to violate the civil rights of 300 million Americans, rather than acknowledge that Muslim terrorists are all actually Muslims.

The craziest thing of all about the body scanners that liberals want might be this: Muslims apparently wouldn’t stand for submitting to such scans, and Obama liberals are such moral idiots that they would probably exempt Muslims from the scans used to detect explosives brought on planes by Muslims.

George Bush was like Winston Churchill in the war on terror; and Barack Obama is like Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain tried to compromise with terror, negotiate with it.  Winston Churchill, nearly alone among leaders (FDR included), realized that Nazism was so evil that it literally had to be fought to the death.

Obama Democrats believed George Bush viewed terrorism through an ideological prism, and saw nonexistent enemies everywhere.  The thing is that Obama Democrats ALSO view terrorism through an ideological prism, but see enemies NOWHERE.  And Obama’s ideology keeps biting him in the balls because both his ideology and his policies simply fail to correspond to reality.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “The Heinous Failure Of The Obama Administration Against Terrorism”

  1. sandra cioppa Says:

    You are spewing hate and lies. You’re full of crap.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    I edited out your profanity and replaced it with a synonym.

    I have absolutely no doubt that you were nothing but loving when you used that profanity. You appalling hypocrite.

    I could have deleted this – and usually would have – but I simply wanted to demonstrate the profound lack of thought and raw mindless irrationalism that characterizes the left.

    Having absolutely nothing in an entire article to point to as a lie (not to mention “hate”), and being a true liberal, you dispense with truth and facts altogether and focus entirely upon demagogic rhetoric and demonization.

    If people like you had any virtue whatsoever, you’d be ashamed of yourselves.

  3. Michael Eden Sr. Says:

    Is it your assertion that any and all acts labeled as Muslim-perpetrated terrorist acts that occur in the US are to be causally linked to the sitting president, his action or inaction, the political leaning of his views or of those of his supporters?

    And do any so-called terrorist acts committed by other non-Muslims on US soil against American citizens qualify as being the fault of the sitting president?

    Before you respond, please do me a favor and define “terrorist act.” Humor me, not all of us know as much as you do.

    Waiting for your considered responses….
    sincerely,

    yo’ daddy

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Thankfully, you and my daddy have nothing in common.

    For what it’s worth, it would make a whole lot more sense if you actually attempted to find specific fault with the article that you are commenting on. Did I get a specific fact wrong? Are you saying I said something that isn’t true? Such as what, exactly?

    But I’ll say a little more:

    How about if I define “terrorist act” in terms of the dozen plus that have now occurred in 2009 under Obama? Would that be okay?

    Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don’t seem to like Americans any better because we’re closing down Guantanamo.”

    I mean, you have no idea what a terrorist attack is, but such ignorance doesn’t seem to bother experts such as Jenkins. Just because you don’t know squat doesn’t mean that people who actually know something don’t.

    When people commit acts of violence to inspire terror/fear in a population to advance an ideology, that is terrorism. And when such individuals employ bombs, or guns, or airplanes to deliberately attack civilians, that becomes a terrorist act. I guess I’m rather surprised that you are so completely clueless about such an important subject.

    When George Bush assumed the presidency, he basically spent his first seven months continuing the Clinton era policies. Like Clinton, he didn’t take the growing threat of terrorism seriously. Unlike Clinton, he hadn’t suffered a series of growing attacks that should have put terrorism on the top burner rather than on the bottom.

    And we suffered the most massive and costly enemy attack in American history as a result. Nearly 3,000 innocent American civilians were murdered.

    George Bush learned his lesson quickly. He employed numerous measures to protect this country and keep it safe. He devoted his presidency to dealing with the existential threat to Western civilization.

    Barack Obama has largely undermined or dismantled those measures.

    And now we’ve suffered more attacks in just one year of Obama’s presidency than we suffered for YEARS under George Bush – in spite of the fact that we were told that the terrorists (whom they wouldn’t CALL terrorists, but some politically-correct substitute) were only attacking us because of Bush.

    Obama has bowed and genuflected; he has apologized for America as though it were a villain rather than a hero; he has blamed this country and acted as though his presidency would make up for all those terrible years before HE came to power; he has promised that he would negotiate with murderous rogue regimes; etc. etc. And you are welcome to explain what exactly we have to show for it besides a nearly nuclear-weaponized Iranian regime.

    I’ve written nearly a hundred articles dealing with the subject of terrorism. And the overwhelming majority of those articles explained in detail what Obama was doing – both philosophically and in his policies – that was completely wrong and would lead to MORE terrorism. You ask me to link the increase of terrorism to Obama and his policies. Excuse me, but I’ve done so in spades.

    In very short and brief: When Obama took a naive policy that even his fellow Democrat presidential candidates (e.g., Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden) ridiculed as naive and foolish toward rogue regimes such as Iran, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama appointed unqualified political hacks like Leon Panetta and Janet Napolitano to run our most important agencies, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When the Obama administration stopped using terms like “terrorism” and “war on terror” and started using terms like “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disaster” in their place, I said that that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama stopped treating terrorism as an act of war and started treating it like “isolated” crimes, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama and Erick Holder attacked and demonzied the CIA, and created a bitter and depressed atmosphere where agents dotted every i and crossed every t rather than take risks to protect America, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama refused to treat terrorist like enemy combatants and instead treat them like ordinary criminals, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama said that he would close Gitmo and release hardened terrorists to countries like Yemen where history had already proven they would be released to fight again just because Gitmo was somehow “bad,” I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama demanded that our soldiers turn over terrorists to FBI agents who would read them their Miranda rights so they couldn’t be interrogated, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks When Obama demonstrated that he was a weakling appeaser, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama opposed the Iraq war and the rationale for it, I said that he would be seen as weak and powerless, which would lead to more attacks. When Obama closed down Gitmo and took numerous other actions to dismantle the policies and procedures that kept us safe, I said it would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama decried American measures to keep the country safe as “torture,” I said that it would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama basically declassified the intelligence playbook so terrorists would know exactly how far we would go and just what we’d do to interrogate them, I said it would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama started giving miranda rights to terrorists, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama started criminally prosecuting our SEALs and treating them like terrorists while treating terrorists like citizens, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When liberals all along insisted that we not profile – as Israel does in successfully protecting it’s airline flights – I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. When Obama basically undermined the historic support for Israel, I said that would fail and lead to more attacks. I mean, I can just go on and on.

    And here I am, being proven correct one terrorist attack at a time.

    I suppose what I’d really like from you, Mister smart ass, would be to go point-by-point, and show me how each of these things Obama did would make the terrorists either fear us more, or love us more, and reduce terrorism.

    After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured, he said that the American response was so massive, so overwhelming, and so effective, that he doubted whether al Qaeda would ever dare attack the United States again. That was after we’d waterboarded that arrogant smirk off his face.

    The reason that they are attacking us again is because they perceive Barack Obama to be a weak coward who will not fight them. George Bush taught them that America would take the fight right down their throats, and take off the gloves to fight for American and Western survival. Barack Obama taught them that he would absolutely do no such thing.

    And nearly 80% of Americans agree that Obama is not a strong enough leader to keep us safe.

    You’ll have to share which “so-called terrorist acts committed by other non-Muslims on US soil” you’re talking about before I bother to respond to that point. I’ll take a shot and guess that you aren’t talking about the pro-life protester who was gunned down.

  5. HL Says:

    Michael, you are a fierce debater with the truth and are doing a great job. May the Lord continue to bless you and use you mightily.

    I watched a liberal commenting on all this and all he could do was try and protect Obama and his dangerously stupid ideas about the real war being waged against us by Islamic Jihadists, by trying to blame Bush. The same as the commenter above. UNREAL.

    REALITY keeps proving Obama and his followers DEAD wrong. I really pray enough American voters will have enough self-preservation to vote these incompetant, dangerous hypocrites out of office.

  6. Michael Eden Sr. Says:

    Oh, I am sure that everything you have said, every conjecture, every adjective, every rationale is true since ou seem to have access to information beyond the reach of the rest of us. I would appreciate citations for every single “fact” you have laid out. Can you do that? I look forward to seeing that.

    So, Obama is responsible for a increase in terrorism both here and abroad because he doesn’t use the words “war on terrorism?” I didn’t know terrorists were so afraid of being called “terrorists” that they went into hiding every time Bush said “war on terrorism.”

    So, Bush’s incompetence before 9-11 means he is as culpable for that event as Obama’s weakness is for a lone gunman at Ft. Hood and an inept underwear powder bomber on a flight that originated in Amsterdam? Apparently correlation equals causation in your view, therefore, we must find Bush responsible for the Virginia Tech killings, the DC sniper, the Anthrax attacks, in fact, all terrorist acts committed on US soil from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009 happened on Bush’s watch.

    Thanks for clearing up your views….I await your citations.
    sincerely,
    big poppa

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    You are trying to make this all about blaming Obama just because it happened while he was president. But that isn’t what it is about. I provided articles from the Washington Post and the New York Times – both reliably liberal – as well as from the Wall Street Journal that all point out the frankly inexcusable failurs of the Obama administration here. There were so many lapses it is simply unreal. Maybe you should look at those failures, rather than ignoring them.

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my last response. I have written nearly 100 articles about Obama and terrorism. And they are quite filled with numerous citations and quotations, thank you very much. If you would like to see those citations, feel free to start reading: all you have to do is go to “terrorism” under “categories” on my blog and go to town. Every single point I made, and a bunch of others besides, have supporting references to document them. Most of them are quite frankly common knowledge now. But don’t ask me to waste my time summarizing the links on to one page for you, as I doubt very much that you are worth it. You can do it yourself, unless you’re some special kind of idiot.

    Why don’t you go through that list and point out the things which aren’t true? For that matter, why don’t you go through this article and tell me what isn’t true, as I already asked?

    I wonder if you are truly as dense as you present yourself. Do you truly think that the transition from “war on terror” to “overseas contingency operation,” and “terrorism” to “man-caused disaster” merely amounts to arbitrarily using different words, and that language means absolutely nothing?

    Rather, the switch in language conveys the very real and profound change in the Obama administration’s policy from that of the Bush administration. They quit recognizing “terrorism.” They quit viewing this giant struggle as a “war.” The war on terror was over. Now it is merely – in Obama’s words – “isolated extremists” committing crimes which should be turned over to our police and our criminal court system rather than be dealt with as acts of war. And that is about as dramatic and as stark a difference as you can get.

    And, this isn’t about terrorists being afraid of being called terrorists, and it is frankly asinine of you to think that this is about such. Rather, it is about intentionality: do we intend to fight these terrorists, go to war against them, take the war to them, and kill them or not? If we do, then it’s a war on terror and terrorists; if we don’t, then it is an overseas contingency operation and a hunt for isolated purveyors of man-caused disasters. It’s as simple as that.

    And, yes, Bush WAS culpable for 9/11, just as Clinton was. Are you aware that the USS Cole attack occurred on October 12, 2000, just a couple of months before Clinton left office? Throughout the Clinton presidency, there was one attack after another, a building up. And Clinton ignored it. Just today, the commander of the Cole was on television saying that Clinton swept the investigation/reaction under the rug to leave an ostensibly clean slate for the incoming Bush administration. Terrorism was not a major focus of Clinton as he briefed Bush.

    Nor did Bush, in his seven months in office before 9/11, do anything to substantially alter our policy on terrorism. The Cole commander also pointed out that Bush came in with a “looking ahead, not behind” view, and the Cole attack was ignored. And had we taken that Cole attack seriously – which was committed by al Qaeda – we might very well have broken up the 9/11 attack.

    All the 9/11 attackers got into the country, and started their training, etc., during the Clinton years. But had Bush done what he SHOULD have done to react to the clearly building threat of terrorism – which Clinton had utterly failed to do – then 9/11 could quite probably have been broken up.

    So Bush DID have some responsibility for 9/11. As did Bill Clinton.

    The big difference is that George Bush – after being attacked (and unlike Clinton after many attacks) – took terrorism seriously. He took enormous measures to keep us safe. And he DID keep us safe.

    Now Barack Obama has come in and removed a great many of those crucial measures. And now we are naked again.

    Now you’ve mentioned your “domestic terrorist attacks.” Was the Virginia Tech killer a terrorist? Can you show me what his ideology was that he was using violence to advance? Or was he just a nutcase? From everything I’ve read, he was just a nutcase. In the case of Malvo (the DC sniper), only one out of 10+ cases was prosecuted using the label “terrorist.” Investigators widely believed his primary target was his wife, and that he wanted to make it appear that she was just another random sniper victim.

    But here’s the thing. All the cases you mentioned occurred early in the Bush administration, when he was literally building a protection against terrorism from SCRATCH. Not only did Clinton fail to leave Bush with any such system, but in fact Clinton had actually WEAKENED our system, by instituting a legal “firewall” between the CIA and FBI so they could not share information with one another.

    Bush had to change the entire culture, create entirely new agencies, and literally go to war, to create the changes that kept us safe. It took time to do all that. And it was during that time that every single one of the attacks/crimes you mention – excepting the Virginia Tech case which was NOT a terrorist attack – occurred.

    So here’s the bottom line: Bush suffered a major attack, and a couple of smaller ones. And he changed the system to keep us safe. Obama took the system that kept us safe and weakened/undermined it, and now we’re suffering attacks.

    I also cited the Rasmussen poll in my article, which shows that 79% of Americans now believe that America will be attacked by terrorists in the coming year. That is up dramatically from the last several years following George Bush’s measures to keep this country safe. So this isn’t just a difference of opinion between you and I; this is a difference of opinion between you and the overwhelming majority of Americans.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, HL. I appreciate your support.

    Michelle Malkin is pointing out that the Democrats are in a real quandry here as they try to blame Bush. Bush released a couple of Gitmo terrorists to Saudi Arabia. They got out, and apparently were the ones who trained this terrorist in Yemen.

    So Democrats are blaming Bush for the two terrorists he released, when it was LIBERALS who wanted Gitmo closed and the terrorists freed, rather than conservatives. And it was Barack Obama who was trying to release 90 terrorists to that very same Yemen, with conservatives opposing him tooth and nail.

    Virtually every single thing that liberals now want to point at Bush to make him somehow responsible, Obama has done times 1,000.

    What we ultiamtely find, every time Democrats get power, is that all they know how to do is demagogue and demonize. They are utter faillures when it comes to leading and governing, because their ideas are stupid and their worldview is depraved. The only thing they CAN do well is try to point a finger at someone else to blame Republicans for their own failures.

  9. Michael Eden Sr. Says:

    Whew, you certainly have it all figured out. We can blame Clinton for 9-11, Bush Jr. somewhat and only because he was just “looking forward” and apparently trusted that Clinton had eliminated the terrorist threat before he was out of office. And whatever criminal act perpetrated by a criminal in 2009-2012 who references a greater ideology as a reason for their crime is the fault of Obama, and his weakening of the entire security apparatus of this country due to his policies, liberal ideology or different security protocols. Fascinating.

    Ahem, so, therefore, using your logic, terrorism only exists when the perpetrator makes claims of some “ideology was that he was using violence to advance” versus a simple “nutcase.” So, Hasan’s attack on Ft. Hood as lone gunman isn’t just a simple “nutcase” because he referenced Muslim extremist views? Even though Hasan was not directed by anyone else but himself he is somehow part of an al-qaeda threat?

    And somehow, Obama’s election ushered in policies that affected how a military base screens personnel before they enter the base? Please be specific and tell me which Obama initiative caused the base guards to let their “guard” down, so to speak.

    So, have mentioned in your myriad of emails how Bush’s war on terrorism including attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9-11? Obama uses the terms “war with Al-qaeda” since those are the folks who attacked us. It seems appropriate to know who we are fighting, it seems that Bush could never figure that one out. In a real sense, Obama has just made us safer by actually identifying with whom we are at war. We are not at war with a noun a la Bush Jr., we are at war with people who advance a terrorist ideology that specifically threatens the United States and its interests, property and people.

    What specific changes in procedure and practice has Obama made from his inauguration day to Christmas Day (different from those already put in place by the Bush Administration) that have so reduced our level of security to allow such heinous terrorist attacks such as Ft. Hood and a guy lighting himself on fire on an international flight originating from another country.

    Seriously now, how is Obama at fault for a flight that originated in another country? Did he personally screen the terrorist? What Obama policy dictated that all names on a watch list should not updated to an international no-fly list?

    By the way, your poll quoting the fact that 79% Americans expect another attack means what exactly? Do they somehow know the future?
    Can they tell us where it happen and to whom? Oh, if McCain had been elected, I am sure the percentage would have been different…that must be your point.

    Waiting anxiously, Michael
    “I am your father”

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    You erroneously think that it’s just me who has this particular view of terrorism. I checked out several definitions according to our laws, and here’s a typical definition from US Code Title 22:

    (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
    (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
    (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

    And so some of the people you named, such as Malvo the DC sniper, and the Virginia Tech shooter, simply do not qualify. They didn’t have links to terrorist groups; their violence did not have a political motive, etc. Take it up with the universe.

    Bush shared blame for 9/11. And Clinton shares blame for 9/11. You’re a naked ideologue to not see that.

    I gave you a number of reasons why Clinton shares blame for 9/11. Rather than bitch about the fact that I say Clinton was to blame, why don’t you explain how my reasons aren’t valid?

    And with Obama, I gave a list as long as your arm as to what specific things Obama has done to weaken us. You wanted me to waste my time creating an html link for each; I told you to go do something with yourself. But which of the list I give in that paragraph is false, such that Obama somehow has no responsibility for terrorist attacks?

    Stop and think. The White House says nothing about the attack for three days. Then, on Sunday Obama’s top cabinet level Secretary over terrorism says, “the system has worked very, very smoothly.” The very next day, Obama says that the attack came from an “isolated extremist.” But even liberal media were scratching their heads over the “very smoothly” statement when it was obvious that the system hadn’t worked at all. And there was already enough open source information available to know that Obama’s “isolated extremist” line was just a transparent lie. So on Tuesday, Obama says that there were “systemic failures” and a “catastrophic breach of security.” And today the White House is talking about attacking Yemen because it wasn’t an “isolated extremist” after all. Obama and the people he has selected have absolutely no idea what they are doing.

    I maintain that there was no system in place to protect this country from terror attacks prior to 9/11. I maintain that as a result of George Bush’s hard work, we created a system that kept this country attack free for more than six years. I maintain that Obama undermined and weakened many of the Bush protections – and gave you a nice long list of them. And we went from a situation in which we had protected ourselves, to where we are now vulnerable as a result.

    Nidal Hasan was a terrorist who was in direct contact with al Qaeda. You should maybe read something about al Qaeda to understand why they are “terrorists.” We now have dozens of statements from his co-workers that he routinely made jihadist statements. He had “soldier of Allah” on his freaking business card. Yes, I think we can safely say the man was a terrorist, rather than merely being a nutcase.

    I love you liberals. You dismiss that Hasan was a terrorist because he was a nutcase. As if being a nutcase somehow prevents him from being a terrorist, since clearly only the most mentally healthy of individuals decide to dedicate their lives to mass murder for the sake of jihad. Amazing.

    Again, and it gets frustrating to have to repeatedly explain to the mentally challenged, I provided a very long list of things Obama has done to undermine our security. One of the worst things he did was present himself as a weak man whom the terrorists don’t fear (watch the video). Another was his attacks against his own Central Intelligence Agency, where people had to worry about going to jail for doing their jobs. Obama has so attacked the CIA that they are now “depressed, sullen, and enraged.”

    From a Newsweek article on the poor morale of the CIA:

    [T]he CIA better change their mission to “CYA,” because our government is not going to stand behind you.”

    Those concerns were echoed by a retired undercover operative who still works under contract for the agency (and asked to remain anonymous when discussing internal agency politics). Clandestine Service officers are both demoralized and angry at Obama’s decisions to release the memos and ban future agency use of aggressive interrogation tactics, the former operative said. “It embarrasses our families. You just can’t keep hitting us. Sooner or later we’re going to stop going out and working.” The official added that “a lot of offense was taken” among some Clandestine Service veterans when Obama declared that the interrogation practices the agency employed under Bush were wrong, even though the new Administration would not prosecute operatives for carrying them out.

    These are the people who stand between the American people and mass death. And Obama has alienated, attacked, and threatened them. You tell me if that makes sense. I read an article in which a CIA officer said that Clandestine people were essentially just shuffling papers rather than do something that could cause them to get in trouble. That’s the new climate of fear, and it isn’t in our enemies, but in our protectors.

    It wasn’t some foreign airport that failed here. It was our GOVERNMENT under Obama that failed.

    This terrorist was on a watch list. He had recently been denied a visa in the UK because he lied to the authorities about the reason for his visit (which is a pretty big deal). His father repeatedly attempted to warn the US about his son’s radicalism, speaking to both the US embassy and to the CIA. We find that the CIA had been tracking this kid since August. And you want to make it some foreign airport’s problem???

    I love your absolution of Obama, given the fact that your liberal ilk demonized Bush for nearly eight years for everything under the sun. You people are amazing.

    Lastly, the poll demonstrates a galling lack of confidence in Obama, not the American people’s ability or lack thereof to tell the future. Again, your inability to think amazes me. We don’t know what the poll would have said had McCain been president; what we do know is that the American people do not think that Barack Obama has the ability to protect us.

    Maybe you should read a little bit about why this was such a “systematic failure” even in the opinion of Obama. You seem to be completely and utterly ignorant.

    The biggest threat of all remains the nuclear weapons program of Iran. Iran WILL get the bomb under Obama (something that I predicted before the election). And when Iran gets the bomb, they will be able to unleash a wave of global jihad, or block the Strait of Hormuz and drive up oil prices, with impunity.

    You mentioned John McCain and the threat of terrorism. I wrote back in April 24, 2008:

    A President John McCain can assure the Iranians, “We attacked Iraq when we believed they represented a threat to us, and we will do the same to you. You seriously might want to rethink your plans.” A President John McCain can say to Sunni Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, “We have stood by Iraq even when it was difficult, and we will do the same for you. You don’t need those weapons; the United States will be there for you.”

    And a big part of why Obama is seen as so weak is that he continually opposed fighting our enemies and said we’d be defeated if we tried to fight, while guys like Bush and McCain said stand strong against them.

    Even Hillary Clinton now admits that Obama’s “negotiate with tyrants” strategy has failed:

    We have pursued, under President Obama’s direction, a dual-track approach to Iran. We have reached out. We have offered the opportunity to engage in meaningful, serious discussions with our Iranian counterparts. We have joined fully in the P-5+1 process. We’ve been at the table. But I don’t think anyone can doubt that our outreach has produced very little in terms of any kind of positive response from the Iranians.

    In other words, Obama’s foreign policy has been an abject failure, just as conservatives blatantly stated it would be.

    You just wait and see what happens when Iran becomes a nuclear power while Obama wasted time trying to negotiate with them.

  11. Michael Eden Sr. Says:

    I noticed that you find it very hard to proffer short answers.

    Back to our wonderful exchange, try as I may, I still can’t see how the election of Obama caused such a radical change in Ft. Hood screening procedures regarding personnel and how the election of Obama caused “systemic failures” regarding a name on a database not being placed on an international no fly list. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the one accusing and blaming Obama for his “heinous failures.”

    Apparently, Bush Jr. failed in much the same was when the shoe bomber tried to light his little firecracker…or was that excusable oversight because Bush has so much on his plate fixing all of Clinton’s mistakes….I got it. Boy, I think your kind of thinking rubs off on people. Must fight urge to stop living in reality…must stop the….Ah yes, now I am back and back to the world the rest of us inhabit, all I can see is that you want to correlate, supposed decline in CIA morale, 79% of Americans fearing the future, Obama’s terminology, diplomacy and Iranian obstinacy (they were so much more pliable under W’s term?), poll numbers and the fact Obama himself cites “systemic” failures are proof of “heinous failures”….

    Ah yes, apparently “proof” is just enough people thinking certain thoughts……Take your time correcting me, but don’t let that stop you from providing specific causative evidence regarding base screening and Amsterdam screening and international no fly list protocols.

    Just to recap, you assign blame to the sitting president for whatever “terrorist” act that occurs in or enroute to the United States during his presidency, but somehow Bush Jr. gets a free pass for whatever occurred during his time in charge because of what Clinton did or didn’t do during his administration…a simple yes or no will suffice.

    Waiting anxiously for your next non-answer,

    “why haven’t you called”
    Dad

    p.s. Happy New Year, here’s hoping Obama doesn’t fail anymore, yes?
    Otherwise you would seem to be cheering for the deaths of more innocents….

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    “I noticed that you find it very hard to proffer short answers.”

    I suffer from the setback of having the truth and a lot of facts to refute your ignorant opinions. If you want me to respond to your ignorant and bogus opinions without bothering with facts, I can be much more brief.

    As an example, you demand that I explain how Obama’s failures allowed for the Fort Hood terrorist massacre. But you offer only apparently pathological ignorance: how CAN I offer such, when Obama has clamped down on the investigation, such that nobody gets to know what’s going on? And how am I supposed to go into detail about Fort Hood when Obama is keeping even our representatives and senators from knowing details? What am I supposed to know when the White House won’t even allow officials to testify?

    So you dredge up bogus crap, which would be idiotic for you to say if you had a clue what you were talking about, and then you reprimand me for presenting the facts to demonstrate that it’s bogus crap?

    You are also truly expert at failing to understand the point.

    The shoe bomber lit his shoes in December of 2001, only a couple of months after the 9/11 attacks when we had no system in place to deal with terrorism (again, thanks in particular to Clinton who had 8 years to implement such systems, but didn’t bother to). The shoe bomber employed a tactic (using PETN) we had never seen before. As a result of the terror attacks, George Bush took measures to keep us safe. Unlike Obama, whose administration starting out refusing to even use the word “terrorism,” Bush took terrorism seriously. And George Bush demonstrated he would fight terrorists wherever they were, wherever they took refuge, and against whoever helped them.

    And from the time he implemented those systems, we were safe from terror attacks for six years prior to Obama assuming the office. We had fewer than half the attempted terror attacks during all those years combined than Obama had in just one year.

    Here is a partial listing of attempted terror attacks this year under Obama’s watch while he was undermining the Bush protections.

    And Obama now can’t deal with the same tactics that Bush dealt with and accounted for 8 years ago.

    Barack Obama campaigned against Bush’s policies. When he took office, he undid much of what Bush had done. He also said he wouldn’t fight terrorism as Bush had done. He’d close Gitmo, which (if we just keep our damn terrorists there) keep them from returning to the battlefield where they can train more terrorists. And now we’re no longer safe. There are holes for the terrorists to attack, and the terrorists believe that the weakling in the White House won’t fight them.

    I can’t help but mock hypocrites like you for the fact that you blamed Bush for Hurricane Katrina (and everything else) while ignoring irritating little facts such as that liberal Mayor Ray Nagin allowed 2,000 buses that could have saved every single victim who died to sit submerged in the flood, or that New Orleans used money that was meant for their levees to instead build a stupid statue, or that Democrats who had dominated every single level of government from city to state failed miserably in their own duties. Democrats ignored all that, and they screamed that not only did Bush not care, but that he was a racist.

    So after Democrats threw stone after unhinged stone at Bush for eight bitter years, conservatives now should have to dot every i and cross every t in our denunciation of Obama? I don’t think so. And you’re a total hypocrite for even raising the point. People like you taught us how to bring down a president, and don’t you dare criticize me for doing unto Obama what you did unto Bush.

    Here’s a current article pointing out liberals being screaming mad that we’re using the same tactics against Obama that they used against Bush. Which again brings home the blatant in-your-face hypocrisy of your final sentence: YOU cheered with delight when Americans died under Bush. You called Bush a warmonger and murderer. Your politicians accused innocent Marines of being murderers when they weren’t accusing them of being Nazis. Your Senate Majority Leader said that the Iraq war that our troops were on foreign soil fighting to win was lost in an attempt to pull the plug on them. How dare you cockroaches rebuke us.

    The left taught us how to attack. And now it’s our turn to attack.

    But in this case of shocking White House incompetence, there are ALL KINDS of massive failures that even the White House is slowly acknowledging, but you apparently aren’t intellectually capable of understanding this “totally unacceptable” series of “systemic failures” that contributed to this “catastrophic breach of security” (Obama’s words, following his administration’s initial idiotic claims that “the system worked.” And of course Obama’s initial idiotic claim that this was the work of an “isolated extremist.”

    I also mentioned that Iran WILL get nukes under Obama’s watch while he tries in vain to compromise and negotiate – and remind you that even Hillary Clinton said that was utterly unrealistic during the primary campaign. And I’ll add to that that Obama lost TWICE as many men in Afghanistan than Bush did in 2008 while he dithered for MONTHS and displayed his weakness and indecisiveness for all the terrorists in the world to see.

    I’ll end with that, just to stay brief for you.

    P.S. Your Darth Vader shtick is interesting. Of course, Darth Vader was a mass child murderer who was an abject slave of evil until his son set him straight in the final minutes of the series with the truth.

    So it really doesn’t bother me that you implicitly acknowledge that you are a minion of evil and a moral fool totally deceived by the lie of the dark side. Just thought I’d point out what your ‘clever little motif’ actually meant.

  13. J.W. Wartick Says:

    “Realize that whenever Obama blames Bush, what he is really admitting is that he is a pathetically incompetent non-leader who will not take responsibility for his failures.”

    Tell it like it is Michael. Tell it like it is!

    Also, I love your debate style. Thank goodness there are people like you to read on the blogosphere so I don’t always have to constantly lose hope.

  14. Michael Eden Sr. Says:

    Try as you may, you can’t prove any connection between military base entry procedures for military personnel or Obama’ election.
    Nor can you explain to me how Obama influenced airport screeners in a foreign country to deal with a new “never before seen” (your words for Richard Reid) explosive concoction carried aboard by a person who was not on any international watch list.

    And since the procedures and protocols as to who gets on the list were established under Bush Jr. (since Clinton did nothing) and you can’t tell me how the particulars of inclusion on the list were changed by Obama then I guess you really can’t prove very much.

    And if I may borrow your twisted logic for a bit, just as the lion’s share of blame for all terrorist related acts that occurred during the W’s administration are actually Clinton’s fault so too, any fault for Ft. Hood and the Detroit failed bomber must be assigned to Bush Jr. policies since Obama was just continuing the status quo a la Bush Jr. after Clinton.

    Enjoy responding with another non-answer since your strategy is to spew as many asinine conjectures as you can think of, hoping something will stick. It’s too bad that your capacity for analytical thinking isn’t commensurate with your ability to type right wing propaganda.

    Ciao for now, son…

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    Try as you may, you can’t prove any connection between military base entry procedures for military personnel or Obama’ election. Nor can you explain to me how Obama influenced airport screeners in a foreign country to deal with a new “never before seen” (your words for Richard Reid) explosive concoction carried aboard by a person who was not on any international watch list.”

    It’s hard to believe that there are people out there as stupid as you are, Mr. “Michael Eden, Sr./akj Darth Vader, minion of darkness.

    You’re right. I can’t prove any connection of Obama’s failure to a hard-core ideologue like you.

    I thought I’d already dealt with your stupid demand that I go into pinpoint detail and “prove” Obama was at fault for the terrorist attacks we’ve suffered. I patiently explained how Obama’s paranoid suppression of details of investigations prevent anything like what you are saying. Remember? You previously demanded that I provide details regarding the Fort Hood terrorist massacre. And I pointed out: how CAN I offer such, when Obama has clamped down on the investigation, such that nobody gets to know what’s going on? And how am I supposed to go into detail about Fort Hood when Obama is keeping even our representatives and senators from knowing details? What am I supposed to know when the White House won’t even allow officials to testify?

    You never bothered to deal with that. Very dishonest of you.

    People with common sense know that when a president picks unqualified and incompetent people for important jobs (Leon Panetta and Janet Napolitano are two among many), failure often goes hand in hand. But not you. People with common sense know that when a president makes politics more important than national security, failure often goes hand in hand. But not you. People with common sense know that when a president presents an aura of weakness and indecisiveness rather than strength and resolve, failure often goes hand in hand (and mind you, even Democrats like Dianne Feinstein are calling Obama “indecisive” now). But not you. People with common sense know that when a president goes on apology tour after apology tour to blame his own country rather than stand up for it, failure often goes hand in hand. But not you. People with common sense know that when a president declassifies CIA memos over the fierce objection of four former CIA directors from both Republican and Democrat administrations, failure often goes hand in hand. But not you. People with common sense know that when a president demonizes the CIA which is vital to our protection to the point where they quit trying to protect America and start trying to protect themselves, failure often goes hand in hand. But not you.

    I could go on and on, but I don’t need to. Smart people understand; stupid people never realize anything beyond their own stupid presuppositions.

    Jesus of Nazareth couldn’t prove anything to the likes of you. So it frankly doesn’t surprise me that I can’t, either.

    I suppose, to logically extend your own twisted logic, no one is really responsible for anything. But that didn’t stop people like you from blaming Bush and Republicans for everything under the sun. You hypocrite vermin: you attempt to impose upon me what you NEVER ONCE even tried to impose upon yourself or your political party.

    And to talk about twisted logic, you are simply far too twisted and illogical to understand the point I repeatedly made: Bill Clinton suffered a series of major terrorist attacks, and basically did nothing while al Qaeda grew like a cancer. George Bush experienced a massive attack 7 months into his administration, and initiated a series of sweeping reforms to protect us – after which no more attacks. Barack Obama undid many of those reforms, and now here we are getting attacked again.

    You are apparently too stupid to understand the difference between getting hurt, and then protecting yourself, versus dismantling all the measures that had protected you, and then getting hurt. I don’t doubt that you used to get beaten up a lot as a kid.

    And your “non-answer” garbage is merely the spewing of a total hypocrite, given your abject failure to respond to ANY of my previous challenges to you.

    So long, Darth Vader, abject slave to evil.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    This clown whose using my name and calling himself my daddy is a piece of work, and since he has posted back twice – using false pretenses to post in the latter case – I feel I should announce that I’ve blocked him.

    I’ll quote his opening paragraph (from his post that blocked), dated 2010/01/02 at 1:25am:

    Son, I gotta give you a hand, you really had me fooled, I thought you were just some nutcase, but, in fact, you are something of a super spy or psychic or something ’cause somehow before Ft. Hood, before the Christmas bomber, you knew that Obama has done something to weaken military base entry procedures and that his administration’s tack had caused a name to be not added to an international no fly list unfortunately, you can’t “prove” what those specific policies and changes were because Obama is preventing all investigation into the reasons behind these incidents? Whew, that must be frustrating for you.

    Now I’ll cite something else he wrote (and I blocked) dated 2010/01/02 at 1:41am as “Right thinking man” from the exact same IP address as he’s used all along:

    Kudos to you Michael for printing all of your email responses. You aren’t afraid to tell it like it is. I feel sorry for your so-called “father” maybe you should have him institutionalized. Hey, don’t back down and don’t give in.

    As they say, liberalism is a disease, take pity on the old man.
    as for the rest, Molon Labe brother.

    So, basically, this guy is either so pyscho he’s literally schizophrenic, or else he’s just a dishonest loon using false false pretenses. I personally think he’s both. I don’t want to have anything to do with someone like this.

    This idiot’s basic thesis is that unless I can literally produce the video of Barack Obama personally escorting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab through security at the Amsterdam airport, or escorting Maj. Nidal Hasan through the entrance to Fort Hood, then Barack Obama cannot be blamed in any way, shape, or form. That’s just nuts. Now, let’s say that “Eden Sr” had been objective enough to apply that standard to George Bush. I’d still say it was nuts, but at least the clown would have been fair. But no. Rather, he’s got one whackjob standard to completely absolve Obama (either absolute proof or absolute innocence); and a completely different standard to blame Bush (guilty even if proven innocent). Which is to say, “Eden Sr” is both nuts and dishonest.

    Bill Clinton was terribly wrong in his failure to create a standard to protect this country prior to 9/11 even after a series of building threats and attacks from a clearly growing al Qaeda. The final major attack against the USS Cole occurred only a couple of months before Clinton left office – and Clinton responded by sweeping his mistakes under the rug and squashing any significant investigation. That massive attack against the United States occurred after Clinton had EIGHT YEARS to react to terrorism, but did not. Clinton did not emphasize terrorist threats to the newly incoming Bush administration. And again, the terrorists who murdered nearly 3,000 people got into the US under Clinton’s watch.

    That said, George Bush had over seven months to take terrorism seriously, and he TOO failed. Unlike Clinton – who had eight years, Bush had only seven plus months. But Bush STILL should have seen all the terrorist attacks by al Qaeda under Clinton’s watch, seen the organization growing more powerful and more bold, and made protecting America from terrorists a priority. He didn’t. Not that that acknowledgment meant anything to this “Eden Sr” clown. On his view, conservatives can only be blamed, and liberals can only be defended.

    As an example, I quote in the article the Obama administration trying to blame Bush for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s successful penetration. As indignant as “Eden Sr” is that I would blame Obama, he has absolutely no problem with Obama blaming Bush. That’s just dishonest.

    Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, “The buck stops here.” “Eden Sr” doesn’t think that applies anymore unless the president is a Republican. Otherwise, the buck stops wherever liberals want it to.

    The one thing in Bush’s defense is that he reacted to 9/11 the right way. He took strong measures to protect America – measures which many Democrats and certainly Barack Obama have complained about ever since. Bush did everything he could to defend this country; Obama under his politically correct philosophy did everything HE could do to weaken those protections. And he demonized and isolated the CIA which we desperately need to remain safe.

    Now, let me address the substance of “Eden Sr’s” final diatribe before I throw him into the trash bin of useless refuge. He says that I have to specifically prove that Obama has done something to weaken military base entry procedures or else I have to give him credit that no Democrat ever ONCE gave George Bush.

    I’ve already documented that Barack Obama has suppressed the Hasan investigation, and refusing to allow any witnesses to testify, such that even Congress is completely in the dark as to what happened and how.

    “Eden Sr” again demonstrates his ignorance of actual reality. The Fort Hood shooting had nothing to do with gate entrance policies (flawed as they were). Nidal Hasan was an Army Major, and as an officer of the US Army would have been waved right in. Rather, it had everything to do with a politically correct climate which prevented a radical jihadist from being reported even after expressing terrorist views.

    So let’s begin with the climate of political correctness which resulted in a terrorist lunatic being able to remain in the Army and even get promotions! Now, is it anyone’s contention that George Bush had been criticized for years for his politically correct attitudes toward Muslims, whereas the left wanted to wage war on Islam???!!! Was it George Bush who went to Muslim countries and gave speeches blaming America and American policies? Bullpoop. Rather, the left said CONTINUALLY and STILL says that Bush created the war and created more terrorists. The fact of the matter is that the left is every bit as responsible for its climate of political correctness as it said the right was for its “warmonger” attitude.

    Unless you’re “Eden Sr” in which case you can blame the right all day long for the alleged result of ITS attitude/climate, but you must never blame the left for the result of ITS attitude/climate.

    Let’s look at some of the facts:
    Nidal Hasan had business cards identifying him as a “Soldier of Allah.” According to ABC, “‘He was making no secret of allegiances,’ said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant.”

    The ABC article concludes:

    Hasan listed a Maryland area mobile phone number and an aol.com e-mail address.

    U.S. officials and analysts told ABCNews.com today that Hasan used multiple e-mail addresses and screen names as he contacted several jihadist web sites around the world.

    In addition to his contacts with suspected al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen, authorities said there is evidence he contacted other radical sites and individuals, including some in Europe.

    On Hasan’s official Army personnel record, obtained by ABCNews.com., Hasan lists his e-mail address using the first name of Abduwall, instead of Nidal. Abduwalli, in Arabic, means “slave of” the great protector, or God.

    Then there was the powerpoint lecture Hasan gave to a group of Army officers which left them shaken and “looking really upset.”

    Hasan had this:

    The final three slides indicate that Hasan referred to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, suicide bombers and Iran.

    Under a slide titled “Comments,” he wrote: “If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the ‘infidels’; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.” [sic]

    The last bullet point on that page reads simply: “We love death more then [sic] you love life!”

    Under the “Conclusions” page, Hasan wrote that “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam,” and that “Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly — will vary!”

    But since Obama didn’t personally escort Nidal Hasan through the gate, or carry his guns for him, I guess Obama and his administration isn’t responsible in any way for this incredibly enormous failure.

    In a Democrat administration, no Democrat can be to blame. Absolutely no Democrats can be held responsible under any circumstance. And how dare I think otherwise?

    Let’s go back to the Christmas terrorist attack. The Obama administration initially says “the system worked.” Well, great. Only that was an incredibly false and incredibly incompetent statement – as everyone but “Eden Sr” now knows. The next day Obama finally comes out after his usual dithering and announces that this attack was done by an “isolated extremist.” Well, great – only even as he said it expert after expert said this attack was almost certainly done under the backing of an organization. The next day Obama is forced to admit that rather than being a success, his entire intelligence apparatus was in a state of “systemic failure.” And of course, that systemic failure extends all the way to the TOP, because now today Obama is acknowledging – in direct contrast to his previous statement – that this was an al Qaeda attack and not an “isolated extremist” at all.

    I won’t go too much into detail about the facts that our intelligence system would have picked up if it wasn’t under the authority of a “clown-in-chief” rather than a real commander. The fact that this kid was on a watch list, and nobody bothered to upgrade the list. The fact that the kid had been denied a visa to the UK for lying. The fact that he had spent months in a known terrorist state. The fact that he had a phone conversation which his own FATHER took to the CIA. The fact that the CIA had been monitoring him since August, but there’s that WALL again that Bush tore down that Obama’s pick for Attorney General helped erect during the Clinton years.

    We’re now learning that:
    An official briefed on the attack on a Detroit airliner says the U.S. has known for at least two years that the suspect in the attack could have terrorist ties. But the Obama administration – which is responsible for keeping us safe – let that kid get on an American airline flight bound for the US.

    Now we’re learning more. We’re learning that 20,000 US pilots are pissed off as hell that the White House didn’t notify them that there was what could have been another multiple 9/11-style attack going on.

    DALLAS — The pilots union at American Airlines says federal officials failed to notify crews on planes in the United States about the attempted terror attack aboard a Northwest jet on Christmas Day.

    The Allied Pilots Association calls it “a large-scale communications breakdown concerning this terrorist event.”

    More on that here.

    So “Eden Sr” can go wherever he wants – except here because I’ve blocked him – and assert that Obama and his administration have nothing to answer for because there’s no video of him directly letting these terrorists into the country or onto Fort Hood. He can even run around and assert that I, rather than him, am the nutjob (again, anywhere but here). But short of not personally escorting these terrorists to attack us, Obama’s administration and leadership pretty much failed in every way imaginable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: